The Ethics of Self-Driving Cars

[jesmu84]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ixIoDYVfKA0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ixIoDYVfKA0</a>

[martyconlonontherun]

So basically the Trolley Problem that has been around for a 100 years?

Give me calculated, minimized loss over random, mass catastrophe any day.

Its reminds me of surge pricing for Uber. They say its ethically wrong cause those who can't/don't want to pay surge pricing lose service, but in reality even those who refuse to pay surge pricing benefit since more cars are attracted to the area and non-surge pricing ubers and cabs become available quicker.

Of course there will be some regulation needed, but I hate when improvement for everyone is slowed down because people want to ensure its completely fair. Driverless cars will make the road safer for everyone, even those that are "unfairly" targeted to minimize loss.

[Benny B]

Meh... As with everything else in life, the smart people will avoid harm by figuring out and gaming the algorithm to their advantage, and the meatheads will meet their demise.  Darwin 101.

[PBRme]

When I look around the US/world lately I think Darwin has been on an extended vacation

[#UnleashSean]

The problem given won't even happen. The car would slow down sensing danger due to being boxed in.

[Benny B]

The problem given won't even happen. The car would slow down sensing danger due to being boxed in.

Agreed... The car would stop immediately, just like most people would do in that situation.

[StillAWarrior]

Agreed... The car would stop immediately, just like most people would do in that situation.

The car will only do that if that's what it's been programmed to do. Which is a choice. The car could be programmed to swerve to avoid a collision.

The premise in the video is that the car cannot stop in time to avoid the collision. If you're going to simply change the premise by saying, "that won't happen because the car will stop in time," you might as well say, "that won't happen, the car would just drive a different route that day."

The ethical dilemma is, IF the car cannot stop in time, will it be programmed to swerve, as many drivers would do in that circumstance. It's an interesting question. The fact patterns in ethical dilemmas don't always have to be 100% realistic to illustrate the dilemma.

[Benny B]

The car will only do that if that's what it's been programmed to do. Which is a choice. The car could be programmed to swerve to avoid a collision.

The premise in the video is that the car cannot stop in time to avoid the collision. If you're going to simply change the premise by saying, "that won't happen because the car will stop in time," you might as well say, "that won't happen, the car would just drive a different route that day."

The ethical dilemma is, IF the car cannot stop in time, will it be programmed to swerve, as many drivers would do in that circumstance. It's an interesting question. The fact patterns in ethical dilemmas don't always have to be 100% realistic to illustrate the dilemma.

A self-driving car will never be programmed to swerve into another occupied vehicle under any circumstances, i.e. there will be no evasive action if it means potential harm to others, period.  This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.

[brewcity77]

The car will only do that if that's what it's been programmed to do. Which is a choice. The car could be programmed to swerve to avoid a collision.

The premise in the video is that the car cannot stop in time to avoid the collision. If you're going to simply change the premise by saying, "that won't happen because the car will stop in time," you might as well say, "that won't happen, the car would just drive a different route that day."

The ethical dilemma is, IF the car cannot stop in time, will it be programmed to swerve, as many drivers would do in that circumstance. It's an interesting question. The fact patterns in ethical dilemmas don't always have to be 100% realistic to illustrate the dilemma.

If the car cannot stop in time, it was programmed incorrectly. The situation we are given puts the car in a situation where it is tailgating. I've heard both the 2 second and 3 second rules for following distance to be able to come to a complete stop. My guess is a self-driving car would probably follow at double the safe distance. I can't see this situation happening because the car was boxed in because it would slow down before that situation presented itself. It is far more likely this car would be struck from behind by a non-self-driving tailgating driver in this situation than the car would strike any object directly in front of it.

Now if it's a case of the car being cut off by another driver, or someone pulling in front of the self-driving car and coming to a sudden stop, that's a different discussion, but also one that is likely caused by the other driver and not the self-driving car.

[StillAWarrior]

A self-driving car will never be programmed to swerve into another occupied vehicle under any circumstances, i.e. there will be no evasive action if it means potential harm to others, period.  This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.

Sounds like a choice.  Ethical dilemma solved.  I think you're taking it a little too seriously.  I didn't realize there was some sort of controversy that we all were addressing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A self-driving car will never be programmed to swerve into another occupied vehicle under any circumstances, i.e. there will be no evasive action if it means potential harm to others, period.  This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.

Just imagine the liability parts to this whole thing.  Ahh, the lawyers must be having a field day trying to figure this out, and what the risk exposure is on a $$$ level.  You can bet that is happening, as the manufacturers of these cars are the ones on the hook. 

[Benny B]

Just imagine the liability parts to this whole thing.  Ahh, the lawyers must be having a field day trying to figure this out, and what the risk exposure is on a $$$ level.  You can bet that is happening, as the manufacturers of these cars are the ones on the hook.

Meh.  People much smarter than all of us are figuring out the risk exposure.  Therefore, it's not the lawyers who are having a field day.

[GooooMarquette]

Here's an ethical question relating to self-driving cars.

If you were the programmer and were trying to anticipate a situation where the only options were plowing into a crowd of people wearing Notre Dame shirts or plowing into a crowd of people wearing Bucky shirts, which direction to you tell the car to go?

[Note:  There is a right answer.]

[Tugg Speedman]

Here's an ethical question relating to self-driving cars.

If you were the programmer and were trying to anticipate a situation where the only options were plowing into a crowd of people wearing Notre Dame shirts or plowing into a crowd of people wearing Bucky shirts, which direction to you tell the car to go?

[Note:  There is a right answer.]

Both!

[GooooMarquette]

Both!

Good answer...but assume it has to be one or the other.

[#UnleashSean]

Here's an ethical question relating to self-driving cars.

If you were the programmer and were trying to anticipate a situation where the only options were plowing into a crowd of people wearing Notre Dame shirts or plowing into a crowd of people wearing Bucky shirts, which direction to you tell the car to go?

[Note:  There is a right answer.]

Plow into the Notre Dame fans first, then afterwards plow into the way more overweight bucky nation.

[GooooMarquette]

Plow into the Notre Dame fans first, then afterwards plow into the way more overweight bucky nation.

lol

My answer - assuming it had to be one or the other - whichever group is larger!

[GOO]

Another article worth a read.  See link at the bottom.  Many here dismiss the ethical issues as not real, but they are completely real. A real driver will plow into pedestrians in front of them rather than turn off the side of a mountain or crash into a wall.  Should the driver less car to the same or should it do everything possible to avoid killing people outside the car including sacrificing the driver of the car.  The vehicle will know how many people are in the car, does the number of occupants matter, etc.   

Article Summary: Basically, because self driving cars follow the law (speed limits, etc), they are involved in twice as many accidents.  Not the fault of the self driving cars, just that other drivers hit them from behind.

So, the ethical issue in the article is should these cars violate the law to fit in to how humans actually drive.  I say no, let's make our roads safer and safer.  33K deaths a year in the USA for driving is crazy.  Yet we'll spend trillions fighting domestic terror over the next decade where very, very few lives will be lost in comparison, even if we don't spend the money.  Completely illogical, of course. But no one ever accused the USA of making logical political decisions (and it doesn't matter which side of the debates your on, they both make consistently illogical choices, unless of course the only logic of politicians is what is good for getting me reelected and richer, which seems to be the logic of Washington on both sides of the aisle). 

Countries like Norway and Sweden actually have stared taking driver safety and road safety seriously and have really reduced driving deaths.  I wish we'd throw a few bucks towards this problem.  But since as a society we don't seem to care much, illogically, the solution will have to be car tech.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/humans-are-slamming-into-driverless-cars-and-exposing-a-key-flaw

[martyconlonontherun]

Another article worth a read.  See link at the bottom.  Many here dismiss the ethical issues as not real, but they are completely real. A real driver will plow into pedestrians in front of them rather than turn off the side of a mountain or crash into a wall.  Should the driver less car to the same or should it do everything possible to avoid killing people outside the car including sacrificing the driver of the car.  The vehicle will know how many people are in the car, does the number of occupants matter, etc.   

I'm dismissing the ethical issues cause the negative consequences in that is sooooooo small compared to the additional benefits of driverless cars. I admit these issues need to be decided but as a whole once the decisions are made, they will save more lives. And honestly, if i am taking the risk of being in a car, I am taking the risks that it is still dangerous and you can die. "one death is a tragedy one million is a statistic" Yeah, it sucks that your car basically self-sacrificed you for others but I just don't understand the right of the individual known in a car is more important than unknown pedestrians on the street.

Articles like these paralyze progress because people only see the one situation you posted and think "The driverless car is going to kill me." This totally disregards the 99.999999999% of the time the car will protect and make the right decision for you. I would rather put my life on the calculation of a computer than me trying to make a last second my move would more likely kill me and others. I'ld probably swerve into on-coming traffic and kill me and the oncoming driver.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm dismissing the ethical issues cause the negative consequences in that is sooooooo small compared to the additional benefits of driverless cars. I admit these issues need to be decided but as a whole once the decisions are made, they will save more lives. And honestly, if i am taking the risk of being in a car, I am taking the risks that it is still dangerous and you can die. "one death is a tragedy one million is a statistic" Yeah, it sucks that your car basically self-sacrificed you for others but I just don't understand the right of the individual known in a car is more important than unknown pedestrians on the street.

Articles like these paralyze progress because people only see the one situation you posted and think "The driverless car is going to kill me." This totally disregards the 99.999999999% of the time the car will protect and make the right decision for you. I would rather put my life on the calculation of a computer than me trying to make a last second my move would more likely kill me and others. I'ld probably swerve into on-coming traffic and kill me and the oncoming driver.

We should probably just have a computer program decide whether you get to eat that ice cream, or have to opt for carrot sticks instead.  Cuz, you know, it will save a lot of lives.

Or maybe there is something to this idea that people should get to choose based on more than just raw statistics....

[martyconlonontherun]

We should probably just have a computer program decide whether you get to eat that ice cream, or have to opt for carrot sticks instead.  Cuz, you know, it will save a lot of lives.

Or maybe there is something to this idea that people should get to choose based on more than just raw statistics....

I think you missed my point. The ethical issue is so small in the grand scheme of things. If you want more personal choice, fine. Make it so the driver predetermines what they want to do in a given circumstance.They can select from things like "Safety of passengers is number 1 priority when my children are in the car" or "sacrifice myself if I'm alone and it saves multiple lives." I just think it is dumb people take this ethical question like this and delay progress. The chances that you are in this ethical situation is so small it pales in comparison to all the other advantages. The cars are safer in those circumstances cause a human driver probably will make the wrong decision that kills them and others, anyways. Let's get it on them on the road and regulate ethical issues as they come up.

Would you not ride in a driverless because it could kill you without giving you the choice? I would much rather the car sacrifice me than my idiot friend on the phone trying to drive. 

[MUsoxfan]

I think you missed my point. The ethical issue is so small in the grand scheme of things. If you want more personal choice, fine. Make it so the driver predetermines what they want to do in a given circumstance.They can select from things like "Safety of passengers is number 1 priority when my children are in the car" or "sacrifice myself if I'm alone and it saves multiple lives." I just think it is dumb people take this ethical question like this and delay progress. The chances that you are in this ethical situation is so small it pales in comparison to all the other advantages. The cars are safer in those circumstances cause a human driver probably will make the wrong decision that kills them and others, anyways. Let's get it on them on the road and regulate ethical issues as they come up.

Would you not ride in a driverless because it could kill you without giving you the choice? I would much rather the car sacrifice me than my idiot friend on the phone trying to drive.

All it takes is one catastrophic accident caused by a computer driven car to bring down the entire driverless car industry.

If I kill a van full of children, it's me being irresponsible and liable. If a driverless car kills that van full of children, it's the entire driverless company that's liable

A nation of driverless cars is nothing but a fantasy. Unless there is tort reform. But I promise you that lawyers are already salivating over the prospect

[Tugg Speedman]

All it takes is one catastrophic accident caused by a computer driven car to bring down the entire driverless car industry.

If I kill a van full of children, it's me being irresponsible and liable. If a driverless car kills that van full of children, it's the entire driverless company that's liable

A nation of driverless cars is nothing but a fantasy. Unless there is tort reform. But I promise you that lawyers are already salivating over the prospect

See the other thread on driverless cars.  Driverless cars are getting in accidents at a higher rate than expected.  Why?  Because driverless cars follow the rules while humans don't.  Every accident is the fault of the human driver.

If anything it will be the opposite, the advancement of driverless cars will be paid by humans that hit them and are sued by the driverless industry.  You hit a driverless car, you're at fault, driverless car follow the rules, their are programmed to do that, they cannot do anything else.

So if a driverless car kills a van full of children, no need to investigate, the van driver is at fault.

[Benny B]

See the other thread on driverless cars.  Driverless cars are getting in accidents at a higher rate than expected.  Why?  Because driverless cars follow the rules while humans don't.  Every accident is the fault of the human driver.

If anything it will be the opposite, the advancement of driverless cars will be paid by humans that hit them and are sued by the driverless industry.  You hit a driverless car, you're at fault, driverless car follow the rules, their are programmed to do that, they cannot do anything else.

So if a driverless car kills a van full of children, no need to investigate, the van driver is at fault.

That's pretty much about it.  And it's because of the morons who can't follow the rules why driverless technology will advance faster than anyone can imagine.

[martyconlonontherun]

All it takes is one catastrophic accident caused by a computer driven car to bring down the entire driverless car industry.

If I kill a van full of children, it's me being irresponsible and liable. If a driverless car kills that van full of children, it's the entire driverless company that's liable

A nation of driverless cars is nothing but a fantasy. Unless there is tort reform. But I promise you that lawyers are already salivating over the prospect

That's a total different argument of why driverless cars are held back versus should they be held back. I hope it gets to the point where it becomes socially irresponsible to drive a car like it would be to start smoking in a bar or drunk driving. Yea, you are taking away personal freedom but you were putting other people in danger with your actions. I would rather drive than be a passenger and I have logged 17K in the past 5.5 months based on my oil change history I checked this past week.

Well today I was driving in the dark and rain through a construction area. There was no way to tell where the lanes were since the light reflected off the slick road. Add in that it was a rerouted construction area on the highway and I was just guessing where my lane was. I would've paid good money to let the car/computer take over in those conditions cause I have no doubts it would have done a better job. Now ten years from now, if some idiot had autodrive turned off and hit me cause he didn't see the lanes, I would hope he would get the book thrown at him. Yeah, there is some kind of enjoyment in driving but there are 35K deaths on US roads every year and cost $300M. If you want to drive and put other lives and property in danger when preventive tools are in place, you should have to pay a premium on insurance and take full responsibility for your actions.